INIT915

Can you be a little more specific?

First of all, his father doesn't appear to be politically powerful at all. Ever see him interviewed; he's barely articulate, let alone powerful. And second, your posts in general are baseless. You seem to imply it's not only possible, but even likely the Feds will pursue this case. What do you base this on? All of these incidents are reviewed by the Feds, only the most egregious are pursued, and by all standards, this case is far from egregious. Your bias is palpable, groundless, but palpable nonetheless.

Agreed completely.

It was in Bear Mtn, but nowhere near Overlook Lodge. I just happened to be passing by on the Palisades as they were walking him/her out. I assumed it was an injured hiker until I saw this post. I don't have a radio in my POV, so I was unaware of the incident until I approached it.

Date: 03-26-11 Time: Location: I-290 Frequency: Multiple Units Operating: NYSP, ECSO, TTPD, TFD/EMS Weather Conditions: Description Of Incident: NYSP Trooper strucked and killed by a passing automobile while on a traffic stop. http://www.wkbw.com/home/Accident-On-I-290--118703864.html

Emtbravo is a 501C3 eligible organization?

I have just realized what is wrong with the discussions on this board. It's not that everyone doesn't agree on the solutions to our problems, rather, it appears we're not even all reading the same posts!

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110321/NEWS/103210341

As usual, thank you for being the voice of reason and logic.

See how gray this topic is? Even the attorney specializing in this type of law says "I would think". Not black and white, despite the posters here indicating it is. And remember, citing laws and case law from other states is somewhat useless if you are working here in New York. The intricacies of civil (and criminal) law vary greatly from state to state. That even holds true in Federal Court. Caselaw varies greatly between Circuits. So a federal negligence claims in the 9th Circuit (West Coast) may need to meet different standards then say in the 2nd Circuit (NY, Conn., Vt.).

Well, first, I think the Capt. was being facetious. Secondly, the Wisconsin bills don't affect PD/FD unions. They are exempt. Even considering the unions that were affected, public opinion in Wisconsin seems far from clear. Story That being said, anyone in their right mind cannot possibly overlook some of the economic, not to mention service, benefits of consolidation. That being said, we have literally had years of talk, and no significant action, with the exception of Ossining. I for one am all for consolidation. There are several areas that seem like perfect candidates. As for the Commissioner angle. Where I live in Orange County (Monroe), the three departments in town, Monroe, Lakeside, and Harriman recently did work on a consolidation plan that resulted in the elimination of Commissioners positions. Maybe someone from OC with a more working knowledge of the change can fill in the specifics, as I wasn't following it that closely. Hopefully some other agencies can use this example as an ice breaker of sorts.

Of course it "can", but it doesn't have too. I have to be honest, I think this might be a tough sell. Perhaps some of our Veterans can chime in. Does awarding the Purple Heart for every concussion, perhaps numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands, devalue the award for for more serious or more permanent injuries? My personal opinion is it may, but what do others think?

A mild TBI and a concussion are not the same thing. It will be interesting to see if they rate a concussion as Purple Heart eligible.

Anyone trained in police tactics knows there must (or at least should) be more to the story. No officers are trained to fire just because someone yells gun. While this retired guy might have some complicity, I'm eternally hopeful the MTA officer didn't fire solely on these grounds. I suspect there will be more details coming out.

Anyone know if any of the "audio" sites captured the audio on this?

Maybe in two years, the majority party has done very little, but at least they didn't undo 50 years of established precedent. And how come no one talks about pre-2008, when the private sector was flourishing? Lots of private sector employees raking in the money and buying stuff they couldn't afford, racking up credit card debt that was unsustainable, buying houses way outside their means. During those years, many were seeing raises far in excess what public sector unions had negotiated. You never saw the public sector employees complaining did you? We never tried to reopen our contracts looking for increases, did we?

Exactly. That's the argument no one wants to make when it inconveniently fails to support their point.

Posts such as this one lead me to believe we should be paying teachers even more !

+1

So, I hear what your saying. But I don't really follow your logic. Your originally premise was PD's should be doing police work and FD's should be doing fire/rescue work? (Feel free to correct me if I am misquoting you.) So, in theory, criminal arson cases should be handled by the PD. But if the FD arson guys are as good as PD investigators, they should keep the case, right? By that logic, if a city PD ESU is as good as the FD in terms of their rescue work, they they can continue doing the rescue work??? I think it's either one or the other, but you can't have it both ways.

I think it cuts both ways. Thinking back your link about the Houston Arson Investigators, I'm not sure "full-time" cops would have let that go down the way it did. Any reason FD doesn't just conduct the relevant fire investigation, then turn over the case to the appropriate PD?

Well, I can honestly say I'm not 100% sure what your talking about, or where your going with your thoughts, so it's difficult for me to respond to your post. So with that said, I'm not even going to try. From a more overall perspective, my point was, to anyone, as we have no shortage of "locker room lawyers" on this board, please don't authoritatively cite laws and regulations that are in fact, erroneous. Posting your opinion about something is fine, but take great pains to make it clear it is your opinion. In my five years on this board, I have seen so many (wrong) laws cited as nothing short of "facts", and I guarantee you this. Somewhere along the way, someone has read a post and took what they read as fact and later relied or repeated this "fact". This does each of us a disservice and I don't believe that's in the spirit of this forum. Remember, there is a huge difference between asking a question in order to learn more about a topic and putting forth incorrect details, colored as "facts."

If anyone takes the time to read the entire decision, they will note that this was an extremely narrow ruling. That means, the ruling dealt less with the principal in general then it did with the specific case brought by the appellants. The SCOTUS could have issued a wider reaching decision, but interestingly, they did not.

While your sentiment is correct, material witness orders are very hard to successfully apply for. I can count on one hand the number I have worked on, and I assure you, State and Federal judges are hesitant to issue them.

Excellent.